Template talk:Theme infobox

Remove quotation marks for conjectural titles

Some musical themes, such as the Desert Theme from New Super Mario Bros. Wii, have only a conjectural title. For these themes, referring to the theme's conjectural title with quotation marks would be misleading. Could this template provide the ability to not use quotation marks for conjectural theme names? B700465189a9 (talk) 10:45, June 2, 2025 (EDT)

I made it so setting the title parameter doesn't force quotes. --Steve (talk) 09:18, June 3, 2025 (EDT)

Add "arrangement_of" and "arrangements" parameters

This talk page proposal has already been settled. Please do not edit this section or its subsections. If you wish to discuss the article, please do so in a new section below the proposal.

Add parameters 5-0
The line between what is an arrangement of a song and what is a distinct song quoting an old motif can be blurry. Add in the fact that our coverage of music is fairly young, and what gets its own article and what doesn't can be a bit hard to keep track of for the average reader.

This proposal isn't necessarily to fix that, but I think it will smooth the experience out.

Similarly to Template:Species infobox, I want to include related themes in the infobox. This gives them a more prominent position on the page, which feels useful to me.

There would be four of these fields, each of which would work as Template:Species infobox's "variant_of" and "variant" arguments do:

• "arrangement_of"
• "quotes_from"
• "arranged_in"
• "quoted_by"

A final note: I'm not sure about this terminology. "Arrangement of" implies the entire thing is an arrangement, but a theme that only briefly quotes another is not uncommon — or should it only be listed in the former case? On the other end, an "arrangements" label implies a complete list, but these fields will only contain arrangements with their own article. Should it be "notable arrangements" instead? I would appreciate y'all weighing in on that. Crossed out — I'm confident in this update's terminology as being unambiguous.

Proposer: Ahemtoday (talk)
Deadline: February 9, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)

Support

1. Ahemtoday (talk) Per proposal.
2. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) Per all. Also, for the terminology, you could just use "arranges" and "arrangements". That way it still satisfies the goal.
3. The Dab Master (talk) I don't think the "arranged_in" and "quoted_by" parameters would really be necessary, but other than that, per proposal.
4. Arend (talk) Per proposal.
5. The Eggo55 (talk) Per all.

Comments

I do think the terminology should be more general. Maybe something like "Arranged in"? I wouldn't say that Cloudtop Cruise is an arrangement of Gusty Garden Galaxy, but I would say that Gusty Garden Galaxy is arranged in Cloudtop Cruise. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 12:34, January 27, 2026 (UTC)

Alternatively, we could introduce more parameters that explicitly distinguish between themes that are just arrangements of other themes (e.g. Secret Course in relation to Ground BGM) and themes that contain parts from other themes but are otherwise original (e.g. Piranha Plant Slide in relation to Ground BGM). This distinction is one we already make in our policies, since themes that are just arrangements of other themes can't get split articles unless they make enough appearances, whereas themes that only contain parts from other themes don't have this restriction. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 12:41, January 27, 2026 (UTC)

I like "arranged in", but I also like the distinction between partial and total arrangements, if that's a distinction already made in policy. What would we call those partial-arrangement parameters? My first instinct is something like "quoted in" and "quoted by", but I would definitely switch "quoted" for a music-specific word if one arises. Ahemtoday (talk) 19:15, January 27, 2026 (UTC)

I don't mind "quoted", but wouldn't "quoted in" and "quoted by" be the same thing? Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 21:34, January 27, 2026 (UTC)

You're right. I think I meant to say "quoted in" and "quotes". Ahemtoday (talk) 21:36, January 27, 2026 (UTC)

Parameter order

This might be a little nitpicky, but I think the appearance parameters should go at the very bottom. I don't want to fix this myself because I'm not good with templates and don't want to break anything, so if someone else could make this change, that'd be appreciated. The Dab Master 11:04, February 10, 2026 (UTC)

Also, do the arrangement and quote parameters really need to be the entire width of the infobox? I don't feel like they're important enough to be formatted like this. The Dab Master 11:13, February 10, 2026 (UTC)